This page is a compendium of items of interest - news stories, scurrilous rumors, links, academic papers, damnable prevarications, rants and amusing anecdotes - about LAUSD and/or public education that didn't - or haven't yet - made it into the "real" 4LAKids blog and weekly e-newsletter at http://www.4LAKids.blogspot.com . 4LAKidsNews will be updated at arbitrary random intervals.

Monday, June 30, 2008

Monday, June 30, 2008, by Dakota in CurbedLA.com

Lordy, those Los Angeles Unified School District construction workers are busy putting up schools. While readers debate whether these schools are actually needed, here's a look at what's coming to Boyle Heights. Located right along the under-construction Gold Line, and relieving the Roosevelt HS, East LA Area New HS #1. goes for a strong color theme, similar to the green and yellow motif of the Edward R Roybal School. Mr. Hawthorne (architecture critic for the Times), we patiently await your critique. Meanwhile, the cost: $103,421,646.

This new high school will be located at the corner of First Street and Mission Road approximately 2 miles east of downtown Los Angeles. The School will provide a campus setting with a science focus in two distinct small learning communities.

speaking of schools, is the construction going on at 20th and Olympic in Santa Monica an expansion of the Crossroads school? It looks like a 4 story building that will replace what used to be a dirt lot.

I don't really understand all the controversy about building new schools. Isn't bond money being used to pay for them (in addition to taxes we already pay)? Also, isn't the population continuing to climb? Yet enrollment is down? That doesn't make sense to me--is it that more kids are not going to school?

#3 - Yes, it is bond money. Regarding enrollment numbers -- People with kids are moving out of LAUSD's borders because they can't afford to live in the area. Also, a lot of charters are opening up so that is taking some kids out of LAUSD's enrollment numbers. Plus, I believe the "boomlet" (which are the kids of the baby boomers) has passed so there is a lull right now in school age kids, but the number of school age kids will start to slowly go back up as the boomlet kids starting having their own kids.

LASam - The bonds are used for both new schools and modernizations of existing schools. You just don't hear much about the modernizations because the schools already exist (and aren't usually painted so colorfully). Plus, even though enrollment is down today, it won't be in five years and it takes forever to build the schools.

6/26/08 — Charter school proponents love to brag about the large number of their high school graduates who move on to college. With this year's commencement ceremonies over, it's time to ask just how well those grads - from either charters or traditional high schools - are prepared for rigorous college work involving the use of the English language.

In Los Angeles County, on the one exam that is specifically designed to answer that question, test scores for 11th-graders in traditional high schools far exceed the results from charter schools.

The test in question, the California State University system's Early Assessment Program, is taken by the state's 11th-graders to determine their readiness for college-level work in English. It's given in May for the purpose of informing students what areas of English they need to work on during their senior year.

Test results from this past May are not yet posted, but scores from the 2007 exam for each high school in any district can be found on the EAP Web site, www.calstate.edu/EAP/.

The average high school pass rate in all L.A. County schools - traditional and charter - was a scant 14percent. Eighty percent of the county's 11th-graders took the test. In some districts all eligible students took it, as did all 11th-graders in one-third of the charters.

Of the 53 L.A. County districts in which the test was given, 29 equaled or exceeded the county average. But only five of the 35 charter schools reached that level.

The highest-scoring district was San Marino, where 61 percent of the district's 11th-graders were considered college-ready before they had started their senior year. Palos Verdes Peninula's two high schools both scored well, with a combined test score of 46 percent, placing second. Arcadia (44 percent), Walnut Valley (30 percent) and La Canada (38 percent) rounded out the top five districts. Las Virgenes (37 percent), South Pasadena (36 percent), Hawthorne (35 percent), El Segundo (31percent) and Beverly Hills (29percent) followed. At the lower end - in Compton, Bassett, Inglewood, Lynwood and Centinela Valley - the pass rate was 5 percent or less.

Within the Los Angeles Unified School District, the results were even more disappointing. It didn't seem to make much difference whether the student attended school in a depressed minority area or in a more affluent section of town. Not a single student at either Locke High or Westchester High was deemed college-ready for work in English.

But the charters fared even worse. Thirty-five Los Angeles County charters administered the English EAP in 2007. In 12, not a single student passed the test.

Only five of the 35 charter schools reached the countywide pass rate of 14 percent.

The highest-scoring charter was Granada Hills High School. Its 36 percent pass rate would have placed it in a tie for seventh among traditional county districts.

At one time, 11th-grade English was the last course that most kids took in that subject. Those entering the University of California system faced the dreaded Subject A exam, then the equivalent of the EAP. It was not uncommon for a UC student to spend a semester in Subject A boning up on English composition during the freshman year at Berkeley or UCLA.

Not much has changed in 60 years. Many students are still not ready to do college work in English, but the EAP shows that charter grads are even less prepared than kids from traditional high schools.

- Ralph E. Shaffer is a California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, professor emeritus of history. Write to him by e-mail at reshaffer@csupomona.edu.

This Wednesday, July 2nd at 6:30 pm at Foshay Learning Center auditorium THE MOST IMPORTANT HEARING TO DATE in our battle with MTA to build the Expo Line underground through the South LA community will take place.

The Judge and the Commissioner in our case before the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), who the MTA must receive approval from before they can lay tracks, will be providing one last opportunity for the public to comment before the CPUC on the deadly, disruptive and discriminatory street-level railroad crossings around Dorsey HS, which is just 10 feet from the tracks, and Foshay Learning Center, which is just 50 feet from the tracks.

We have confirmed that CPUC Commissioner Timothy Simon has been pressured by Westside politicians, and our own council member, Bernard Parks, who represents the area around Foshay, to rubberstamp the MTA's unsafe plan and ignore the requests of the community, the neighborhood councils, LAUSD, UTLA and the Parent Collaborative (link). It's only through great legal maneuvering of our lawyers and the pressure of public opinion that we've been given a public hearing and trial in the face of Parks & Sen. Khuel's (and likely others) inappropriate and unethical political interference into this judicial process.

But Wednesday night is not about the politicians or the lawyers. Wednesday night is about YOU!

Wednesday night is a PUBLIC hearing. It is your time for the Judge and the Commissioner to hear you either in words or through your presence.

There are 700 seats in Foshay Auditorium. Wednesday night is about YOU putting your name on one of those seats and committing yourself between now and then to making sure your neighbors, friends, co-workers and family put their names on the many other seats.

So what are YOU going to do on Wednesday night?

Will YOU help pack the Foshay Auditorium?

Will YOU stand with your South LA community, parents and teachers? We need you there.

Will YOU stand up for the safety of the Foshay and Dorsey children?

Will YOU stand up for justice against the MTA's discriminatory design of the Expo Line that makes no child west of La Cienega walk across the tracks, while forcing THOUSANDS of our South LA children to walk across them EVERY DAY for the next 100 years?

The media will be there. What message do you want to send to those watching?

By John W. Bedell - member of the Orange County Board of Education and president of the California County Boards of Education - from the vacavillE reporter

06/30/2008 — What are we California taxpayers to believe? That our schools are well funded? Children are learning? The state is honoring its Proposition 98 commitments?

Since January, we have heard that we have a $14 billion problem. Or is it $19 billion? Or $21 billion? Or $6 billion? These are all numbers that, at some point, were offered by those "in the know."

Through the years, we have seen Sacramento leaders of both parties play accounting games. They count money that is from next year. They pass on to the schools and other government entities expenses that were once covered by the state. The shell games get more creative each year, and the taxpayer has every reason to be confused, perplexed and even falsely content that "things in Sacramento" are well managed. But are they? I suggest they are not.

The public has voted to support public schools. Proposition 98 was an attempt to protect our children's education. But through "creative financing," the proposed budget for next year is more than $4 billion short of what would be needed just to provide the services provided this year. This, they dare to say, is "protecting 98." What it is, at best, is a deception and, at worst, it is fraud.

Now we hear the governor has a solution: "Offload" the lottery. When voters approved the lottery, it was "sold" partially on helping the schools with revenue. Now he wants to sell it again, this time to Wall Street. If lottery revenues decline, the schools will pay through a loss of revenue.

The governor's lottery "offload" is no more than another gimmick. It is another loan but in a different wrapping. When you put lipstick on a pig, you still have a pig. To sweeten the sale, voters are being told to agree or our sales taxes will be raised. We now have blackmail and/or bribery added to the fraud and insanity.

Research shows students learn more and best if class size is controlled. Current budget proposals will result in an increase in class size. We also know we have an achievement gap in California, where low-income minority students' performance on standardized tests needs our immediate attention. The current budget proposals reduce school resources dedicated to closing this gap. We know that federal regulations from "No Child Left Behind" are looming. Their resultant punishments will hit school districts just at a time when the money needed to bring schools into compliance is being threatened.

Some of our youngest and brightest teachers have been laid off. They are lost to the profession and to our children. The threat of more layoffs is real and morale certainly will not be enhanced for those whose jobs are not eliminated this budget cycle. Unless we have serious budget reform, many of those teachers returning in the fall of 2008 will be absent in fall 2009.

What can citizens do?

Call your local school districts. Find out what the budget cuts mean for your schools in both dollars and programs lost.

• Commit to budgetary honesty by stopping the annual frauds and gimmicks that now characterize California's Sacramento summer.

• Identify predictable revenue streams so that school districts can plan better and provide services to children that the taxpayers have a right to expect.

• Show the courage to protect California's future by protecting California's children of today.

Don't be shy. Let your city council members, homeowners association and any others who do and/or should value an educated citizenry know that their local schools are clearly threatened.

• Contact the governor and tell him you want California's tomorrow protected by protecting California's children today. Share with him what his budget means to your local schools and tell him that this budget is unacceptable.

Finally, register and vote.

I have seen many budget crises since coming to California in 1969. We are still recovering from them. Unless 2008 represents a major change in how we "do budget" in California, the state will sink below its ranking of 46th in dollars spent on education. Mess with education and you mess with California. Help put an end to this "messing" by getting involved to stop the fraud and insanity.

The Legislature should make clear that home schooling is a valid educational path

"The case that started it all was fairly simple: Parents suspected of child abuse, who had been home schooling, were taken to court in an attempt to force them to enroll their children in public schools for better monitoring by outsiders. "

LOS ANGELES TIMES EDITORIAL

June 28, 2008 - The legal arguments over home schooling in California have gotten so mired in pseudo-issues on both sides, they have obscured the home truths of the matter. Now that an appellate court has heard a third round of debate, perhaps the children of California will get the ruling they need.

The case that started it all was fairly simple: Parents suspected of child abuse, who had been home schooling, were taken to court in an attempt to force them to enroll their children in public schools for better monitoring by outsiders. The parents won the first round.

Despite the findings of the trial judge, though, parents have no absolute constitutional right to educate their children instead of sending them to school. Nor was that the issue the judge was called on to decide. There is no constitutional right to child abuse, either; if these children were at risk, all the judge needed to do was determine the appropriate steps to protect them. And if their home education was as meager as the judge said, they could have been ordered into a better school setting; compulsory education is still the law.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal, overruling the judge, made its own grandiose error. Instead of simply deciding whether there is a constitutional right to home school, the court said the question before it was "whether parents can legally home school." It then rendered a rigid interpretation of the state Education Code that forbids parents without teaching credentials to educate their children. The ruling overturned decades of administrative flexibility that has usually allowed California's home schools to operate as private schools.

As a practical matter, most home schoolers do a fine job, sometimes an extraordinary job, of teaching their children. But it is also true that neglectful and abusive families occasionally use the isolation of home schooling to hide their actions, and the state must be empowered to intervene in these situations. Failure to educate a child is in itself a form of neglect.

The appellate court reconsidered on Monday. It should send the case back to the trial court for a narrower ruling that allows home schools while protecting children. But that's not enough to free family education from the threats that pop up every few years. (Six years ago, the state Education Department, which now supports home schoolers, sent a memo warning such parents that they were "outside the law.")

It's up to the Legislature to modify the Education Code so that it formally recognizes home schools as a valid educational path.

June 24th, 2008 - Diverse allies have filed a Williams complaint with the Los Angeles Unified School District to remedy physical education deficiencies.

Physical education teacher vacancies, misassignments, and lack of subject matter competency are recurring problems in various schools from semester to semester and year to year. Teacher deficiencies are part of a pattern and practice by LAUSD of failing to provide quality physical education.

Whereas, Research indicates that small schools offer a personalized learning environment and help strengthen academic performance when coupled with quality teaching, strong leadership, as well as relevant and rigorous instruction…..

June 24, 2008 - The Legislature's budget analyst issued a report last week on the chronic problems that the state's community colleges encounter in instilling the fundamental reading, writing and mathematics skills their students need to obtain college educations.

Back in January, the state's superintendent of public instruction said that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget proposal would change what the governor promised would be the "year of education reform" to a "year of education evisceration."

If the governor's proposal comes close to becoming reality, the impact on California schools would be an estimated reduction in funds of $3 to $4 billion. The Legislative Analyst's Office reports: "The Governor's budget provides total K-12 per-pupil funding (PPF) of $11,626 for 2008‑09. This is roughly $300, or 2.6 percent, less than total PPF for 2007-08. In inflation-adjusted terms, the reduction is about double-roughly $600, or 5 percent."

"I think we are getting close to where it's time for a county revolt, for Los Angeles to separate from the state because we aren't getting our fair share. We pass the state bond measures and get only 43 percent of the money. Where's the logic in that?"

California currently operates two systems designed to turn around low–performing schools—one for state purposes and one for federal purposes. The two systems are uncoordinated and often duplicative, in addition to being poorly structured. We recommend replacing the two systems with an integrated system that serves both state and federal purposes. Under the new system, the state would support district reform efforts. Districts would receive different levels of support depending on the severity of their underlying performance problem and be given short–term funding linked to specific short–term district reform activities.

ZELMA HENDERSON, the last living plaintiff from the Brown v. Board of Education desegregation suit, died last month at the age of 88. Unlike other parents involved in the case, Henderson was satisfied with the quality of all-black schools. What mattered more to her was giving children of different races a chance to learn together and understand each other.

If that had ever happened in Los Angeles, the city's public schools might look much different than they do today.

Friday, June 27, 2008

Educating LA’s Kids By Doug Epperhart | LA CityWatch

Democracy is nourished by education.

Neighborhood councils can affect education.

Neighborhood councils help themselves by helping their schools.

Los Angeles Friday, June 27, 2008 - Antonio Villaraigosa ran for mayor promising to fix L.A. schools. Rebuffed by the courts, he was forced to take over the Los Angeles Unified School District the old-fashioned way—by electing his own school board. Now he has his own man at the helm—former deputy mayor (and past LAUSD superintendent) Ramon Cortines.

Mayors in New York and Chicago took charge of failing schools with good, if not great, results. In others places, like Tampa, Florida, city officials had better luck by breaking up districts into manageable pieces. It remains to be seen how Villaraigosa’s influence—or interference—will affect the 50 percent or more of LAUSD’s students who never make it to graduation.

During the six months Cortines served as interim superintendent in 2000, he proposed a major restructuring of the school district. His plan to eliminate a few hundred administrators and move several hundred more out of headquarters and into schools was the best I’ve ever seen. A copy of that proposal has been gathering dust on a shelf in my office for eight years.

Recently, I heard Cortines on the radio talking about the need to spend dollars at the schools, not downtown. Good luck.

LAUSD spends twice as much money and employs twice as many people as the city of Los Angeles. It is a bureaucratic machine that makes the city look like a model of efficiency.

Where do neighborhood councils fit into the school picture? Officially, they don’t.

Is there anything councils can do to influence our failing public schools? Absolutely.

As the Coastal San Pedro council was gearing up for certification in 2001, I visited four of the five principals who led the elementary schools in our area. (The fifth refused to talk to me. Probably afraid she’d learn something about the community.)

I did this because the toughest group for neighborhood councils to reach is parents. They’re often among the newest residents in the neighborhood and they usually have the least time to get involved in community activities.

Yet, families with children are impacted by issues like traffic, housing, public safety, and taxes—the very quality-of-life concerns neighborhood councils deal with the most.

The best way for councils to reach working parents is to understand that kids at neighborhood schools are our future. Work with your local schools. Talk to principals. Talk to teachers. Talk to parents. Talk to students. They’ll tell you what they need.

As a result of conversations with principals in 2001, the Coastal San Pedro council voted to purchase playground equipment at 15th Street School. This was the first-ever neighborhood council expenditure. Since then, schools have benefited as councils throughout the city have provided funds for everything from library books to service awards for outstanding students.

This year, the three San Pedro councils came together to fund after-school clubs for students at Dana Middle School. These groups offer art instruction, foreign language lessons, a basketball team, and more that they don’t get during the school day.

The clubs were established by a handful of parents a couple of years ago. They saw the need and ran the program on a shoestring budget. Money provided by the neighborhood councils will allow the clubs to expand and serve more kids.

Two weeks ago, a counselor at the school told me they’ve noticed a real difference in the attitudes—and grades—of students involved in the clubs.

Democracy is nourished by education. Neighborhood councils can affect education. Neighborhood councils help themselves by helping their schools.

(Doug Epperhart is a member of the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council governing board. He is a writer and a publisher and a contributor to CityWatch. He can be reached at dougepperhart@cox.net.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

from the city project blog

June 24th, 2008 -Diverse allies have filed a Williams complaint with the Los Angeles Unified School District to remedy physical education deficiencies.

Physical education teacher vacancies, misassignments, and lack of subject matter competency are recurring problems in various schools from semester to semester and year to year. Teacher deficiencies are part of a pattern and practice by LAUSD of failing to provide quality physical education.

Physical education matters. LAUSD is failing fitness. Physically fit students tend to do better academically and stay in school longer. The lack of quality physical education teachers and programs contributes to the epidemic of childhood obesity, particularly for low income students and students of color. Obesity rocketed from 20% to 26% in LAUSD from 1999 to 2006. 90% of LAUSD children are children of color, and 74% are low income (qualify for free or reduced meals).

The Williams Complaint is not a lawsuit. The process provides LAUSD the opportunity to work with the community and health experts to enforce the law and provide quality physical education rather than risk litigation and loss of state and federal funds.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

MOTIONS/RESOLUTIONS PRESENTED TO THE LOS ANGELES CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR CONSIDERATION

SUBJECT: Small Schools II: A Bold Vision for the LAUSD

DATE NOTICED: 6-10-08 PRESENTED FOR ACTION: 6-24-08

PRESENTED BY: Ms. Flores Aguilar

MOVED/SECONDED BY: Ms. Flores Aguilar, Ms. Garcia, Dr. Vladovic

Whereas, Research indicates that small schools offer a personalized learning environment and help strengthen academic performance when coupled with quality teaching, strong leadership, as well as relevant and rigorous instruction;

Whereas, Research indicates that school size is an important factor in student success, and that small schools that are well-planned and implemented can help narrow the achievement gap;

Whereas, Numerous studies have identified the benefits of small schools, as compared to large schools, including:

Improved academic performance of students with disadvantaged socio-economic status (Howley and Bickel, 2000);

Whereas. When considering the ideal size and structure of a school, school districts must consider numerous factors, such as:

The ability of the school to provide students access to the full curriculum, and in senior high schools, access to the full selection of required A-G courses;

The ability of a school to secure and provide resources for students with disabilities;

The ability of teachers to have on-site collaboration with other teachers in their content area, which is a key professional development support for teachers in developing quality instruction;

The ratio of administrators to teachers; and

The financial viability of a school;

Whereas, Multiple small schools within a residence attendance area can provide families with more educational options;

Whereas, Small schools can maximize joint-use opportunities and enrich community partnerships and connections;

Whereas, Studies show that in terms of cost-per-graduate, building and maintaining small

schools represents a wise investment (Lawrence, et. al., 2002, 2005; Stiefel, et. al., 1998); Whereas, A transition to small schools will build on the foundation of the District’s Small Learning Communities (SLC) policy and accelerate progress toward a personalized learning environment for all LAUSD students;

Whereas, There are existing District schools that have demonstrated that a small school environment can facilitate progress toward improved academic achievement, such as:

Arleta High School of Science, Math, and Related Technologies (S.M.A.R.T.);

Harbor Teacher Prep Academy;

Los Angeles School of Global Studies;

Middle College High School; and

Student Empowerment Academy;

Whereas, The governing board of the Los Angeles Unified School District is committed to making schools smaller, where appropriate, and ensuring that all schools have in place the conditions, including quality principals and teachers and rigorous curriculum, to foster improved learning;

Whereas, A Small Schools Policy would represent a monumental cultural shift for the District that will require strong and decisive leadership and purposeful collaboration to ensure instructional success and sustainability; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That a Small School be defined as a unique, personalized learning environment with its own school code, administration, staff, budget, contiguous space, responsibility for all aspects of its educational program, and generally no more than 500 students (approximately 400 in middle schools);

Resolved further, That Small Schools, as defined by the District, will offer a rigorous, relevant, and personalized educational programs (offering an A-G curriculum with multiple pathways at the high school level) – evaluated by multiple measures – to ensure that every student is college-prepared and career-ready;

Resolved further, That the governing board of the Los Angeles Unified School District directs the Superintendent to report to the Board by December 1, 2008, with an analysis, including short and long term benchmarks, and a phase in plan to achieve the commitment to transform to small schools by 2020. The analysis will include:

A portfolio of school sizes and structures that foster high student achievement and meet a variety of community needs;

Identification of the elements needed to create successful outcomes for students;

A cost analysis containing specific recommendation as to the source of the funds;

A process that provides opportunities for schools and SLCs that do not meet priority criteria to become small schools;

Resolved further, That the Board directs the Superintendent to appoint a lead staff person to direct the planning and implementation processes of this Small Schools Policy, including the formation of an implementation team. The Superintendent will report back to the Board within 30 days regarding this appointment and the key staff, as well as key external partners (including bargaining unit representatives), assigned to the implementation team;

Resolved further, that the Board directs the Superintendent to deliver a plan within 180 days that explains and identifies the leadership model that will be put in place to support the adoption of this Small Schools Policy. This plan, which will comprise part of the District’s overall strategic plan, will include:

An implementation strategy including timelines and the identification of which District offices or units will be responsible for the various aspects of implementation;

Central office and local district roles and implications;

Professional development strategies for all Small Schools, as well as for all District administration and management staff. These will include strategies for improving the delivery of rigorous, relevant and responsive instruction to diverse learners, as well as strategies for training and recruiting dynamic future to effectively lead Small Schools, including a full study of the lead teacher model;

Fiscal models of staffing for Small Schools and strategies for keeping administrative costs down, and potentially lowering existing levels of administrative costs; and

Impacts on collective bargaining agreements;

Resolved further, That the Board directs the Superintendent to deliver a report within 180 days that assesses enrollment options in support of Small School choice, both within and beyond residence attendance areas. The report will include:

A review of other large districts with school choice policies;

Recommendations regarding potential educational option zones and residence attendance areas that would support Small Schools;

An assessment of how school choice will impact overcrowding, Immediate Intervention/ Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) sites, and Program Improvement (PI) schools;

A review of current articulation policies for all school levels (PreK-16); and

Analysis of how unique community needs will be considered in a choice plan;

Resolved further, That the Board directs the Superintendent to deliver a report within 180 days that assesses potential joint-use and career-tech opportunities for Small Schools. This report should include:

Existing joint-use agreements;

A list of potential partners;

An identification of potential joint-use and career-tech sites; and

Analysis of opportunities to partner with other stakeholders;

Resolved further, That the Board directs the Superintendent to deliver a report within 180 days that identifies current California Department of Education Facilities Planning Division student density ranges for the District and suggestions for improvements to those policies. The report should also include researched-based recommendations for appropriate student density ranges for new and existing campuses as well as mitigation recommendations where appropriate student density ranges cannot be achieved;

Resolved further, That the Board directs the Superintendent to deliver a report within 180 days that identifies opportunities to leverage and influence state and national policies related to the implementation of Small Schools;

Resolved further, That existing large schools (generally 1,000 students or more) will be transformed into campuses of multiple Small Schools based on their unique needs to accelerate student achievement. This transformation, guided by the analyses called for in this motion, will roll out in phases, with the first phase focused on the District’s high-priority schools as well as middle schools. Future phases will be defined by the Superintendent. It is expected that implementation for Phase 1 schools would commence no later than 2010;

Resolved further, That Small Schools may share a site with other Small Schools. While State density policies and/or intended campus size may determine the maximum number of students assigned to a particular site, most sites shall be limited to no more than:

1,000 elementary students (in two or more Small Schools);

1,000 span students (various grade configurations in two or more Small Schools);

1,600 middle school students (in four or more Small Schools);

2,000 high school students (in four or more Small Schools);

Exemptions may be granted through a vote of the Board. These limits need to accommodate State classroom loading factor guidelines;

Resolved further, That when co-location or sharing of a single site is necessary, new construction and major renewal project designs for existing campuses will designate discrete space for each Small School that embeds administrative and guidance services within them;

Resolved further, That Small Schools co-located on a single site may share common services and spaces (such as a library, clinic, gym, fitness center, performance venues), may coordinate and share some services (music, inter-scholastic sports), and/or take advantage of opportunities to partner with the community to offer its students such amenities; and be it finally

Resolved, That the District will direct newly constructed K-12 schools to be configured as individual Small Schools of generally 500 or fewer students (approximately 400 for middle schools). Schools currently in design shall be configured as individual Small Schools if schedule and budget permit changes in design. Working in close collaboration with educators, future modernization and renewal efforts will support the establishment of individual Small Schools

June 24, 2008 - The Legislature's budget analyst issued a report last week on the chronic problems that the state's community colleges encounter in instilling the fundamental reading, writing and mathematics skills their students need to obtain college educations.

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE:

Back to Basics: Improving College Readiness of Community College Students June 16, 2008 HTMLPDFSummary

"Most incoming (community college) students are not ready for college-level work," the report says. "In addition, relatively few of these students reach proficiency during their time (in community college)."

That's interesting, but it also raises this question: Since virtually all of those community college students graduated from high school, what is that telling us about the level of K-12 instruction?

One presumes, perhaps naively, that if someone possesses a California high school diploma, thus signifying 12 years of education costing taxpayers around $130,000, that someone must possess basic reading, writing and computational skills.

Remember, we're not talking about the roughly one-third of California's teenagers who don't graduate from high school; with few exceptions we're talking about graduates who have enough gumption to attend community college, and yet, this report says most don't have the appropriate basic skills for college-level studies. By the way, that also doesn't count the large numbers of high school graduates – well over a third – who require remedial instruction after being accepted into the California State University system.

It's in that context that we should consider several other recent reports on California schools – researching the problems of the 6 million-student system having become a cottage industry.

The California High School Dropout Research Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara, is part of that cottage industry, and its devastating report on the Los Angeles Unified School District concludes that an LAUSD student has a less than 50-50 chance of completing high school and lists the factors in junior high school and the early years of high school that can predict dropout failure or graduation success.

The report's success predictors include passing algebra by the ninth grade. Ironically, as it was being issued, the state Board of Education was considering a recommendation from the state Department of Education to soften up the policy of introducing algebra in the eighth grade. And the department was also releasing new high school graduation numbers indicating that the dropout problem at LAUSD may be much worse than the UC Santa Barbara report charts, perhaps as high as 60 percent.

Meanwhile, EdSource, a Mountain View think tank devoted to researching California schools, released a study indicating that charter schools – quasi-private schools inside the public school system – showed overall stronger educational outcomes than traditional public schools, even when the data are adjusted for ethnic, linguistic and economic factors.

The report, which refutes many of the criticisms of charter schools that are chanted by the educational establishment, was issued as charter schools in Los Angeles wage a war for survival against that establishment, led by school union officials. And it mirrors a report issued by the California Charter Schools Association about the performance of charter schools in that city.

In a double irony, as those reports surfaced, the Los Angeles Times published a lengthy article about Phil Holmes, whom it describes as "one of the greatest English teachers of his generation," detailing how Holmes, now a teacher in a charter school in a poverty-stricken section of Los Angeles, is able to succeed in teaching high-level English where others have failed.

His school, View Park Preparatory Charter High School, is 96 percent African American, and almost all of its graduates are admitted to four-year colleges, a third of them to the University of California.

Monday, June 23, 2008

June 23, 2008 -Back in January, the state's superintendent of public instruction said that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget proposal would change what the governor promised would be the "year of education reform" to a "year of education evisceration."

If the governor's proposal comes close to becoming reality, the impact on California schools would be an estimated reduction in funds of $3 to $4 billion. The Legislative Analyst's Office reports: "The Governor's budget provides total K-12 per-pupil funding (PPF) of $11,626 for 2008‑09. This is roughly $300, or 2.6 percent, less than total PPF for 2007-08. In inflation-adjusted terms, the reduction is about double-roughly $600, or 5 percent."

In case you're curious, the National Center for Education Statistics indicates California ranks 25th among the 50 states and the District of Columbia in spending per pupil, behind the U.S. average and behind West Virginia.

Money is important in educating students, but increasingly how the funds are spent becomes significant in the discussion. Take, for example, the following realities, presented in last week's Los Angeles Times by Jaana Juvonen, the lead author of the 2004 Rand Corp. report, "The Challenges Facing the American Middle School," about what's happening in L.A. before any new budget proposal gets adopted:

"These are facts of life for seventh-graders in Los Angeles County public middle schools, according to a new report sponsored by the United Way of Los Angeles: 48 percent are bullied; 13 percent carry a weapon to school; 71 percent do not have a caring relationship with a teacher or another adult at school. Perhaps it's no surprise then that statewide assessments published in May reveal that only 5 percent of the 98 middle schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District meet California's academic standards."

On the same day, the paper reported: "The number of students graduating from Los Angeles public schools has declined for two straight years even as enrollment in the 12th grade has been rising sharply, new state data show. The graduation slump began when California started requiring students to pass an exit exam before they could receive a diploma."

"Statewide," the piece went on, "12th-grade enrollment has been rising for several years, the result of a baby boomlet in the late 1980s. Meanwhile, the number of high school graduates has stayed stagnant."

Perhaps, in time, the polemic will be recast. To a degree, the shape of the debate is similar to the unending argument my business partners and I have at lunch. None of us really contends that we shouldn't pay taxes. We just don't believe (a) that the legislature ought to be in charge of deciding how the cash is spent or, on a good day; (b) how the legislature is spending the money. The problem, I sense from talking to people involved in the school system -- and this includes parents -- is that there is no broad understanding, much less consensus, on how the money should be spent to teach effectively.

To be sure, a reduction of, say, $3 billion would move toward "evisceration" assuming nothing else changes. The question, the facts seem to support, is whether we all need to know a little more -- and become engaged in this debate -- about just how well the schools are doing their job without first worrying about how much we're spending, maybe in the wrong way.

By Rick Orlov, Columnist | la DAILY NEWS

Note: THE UP/DOWN VOTE TO PLACE THE NEW SCHOOL BOND "PROPOSITION Z" ON THE NOVEMBER 3 BALLOT WAS REMOVED FROM THE BOARD OF ED'S 6/24 AGENDA AND POSTPONED TO THE 7/22 MEETING.

6-23-08 - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants a measure on the Nov. 3 ballot that would allow selling off the lottery and, if it fails, would impose a 1 percent sales tax.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is looking at placing a half-cent sales tax increase for transit programs.

The Los Angeles Unified School District is considering asking approval of a $3.9 billion bond issue.

And, the City Council is considering a $36 a year parcel tax to pay for anti-gang programs.

With all these measures competing for voter approval, it leads people to wonder if anyone is in charge of setting priorities.

"What we need is someone to step forward and get out front and say this is where we need to put our efforts," said David Tokofsky, a former LAUSD school board member who now works as an education consultant.

"I think we are getting close to where it's time for a county revolt, for Los Angeles to separate from the state because we aren't getting our fair share. We pass the state bond measures and get only 43 percent of the money. Where's the logic in that?"

Tokofsky, who says he has no personal political ambitions at this point in his career, said he remains involved in public policy and worries over the region's future.

"Being out of office, I can see things more clearly," Tokofsky said. "Here, in Los Angeles, we have the richest congressional district in the nation and yet this is the poorest of the 58 counties in the state.

"We should say we will not suffer Sacramento anymore. We pass the state bonds and then we have to run around to get our fair share. We need some leadership to make sure Los Angeles doesn't suffer more."

a report from the California legislative analyst's office

June 10, 2008 - California currently operates two systems designed to turn around low–performing schools—one for state purposes and one for federal purposes. The two systems are uncoordinated and often duplicative, in addition to being poorly structured. We recommend replacing the two systems with an integrated system that serves both state and federal purposes. Under the new system, the state would support district reform efforts. Districts would receive different levels of support depending on the severity of their underlying performance problem and be given short–term funding linked to specific short–term district reform activities. By virtue of being integrated and district–centered, the new system would cost substantially less than the existing system and could be supported entirely with federal funding.

Executive Summary

California, like most states, continues to grapple with how to improve schools that are failing to meet performance expectations. It continues to struggle despite widespread participation and substantial investment in its school improvement programs. Currently, over 2,400 schools in California (about one quarter of all schools) participate in school improvement programs. Since 1999, the state and federal government have invested $2.5 billion in these programs. Despite these efforts, more schools in California are deemed in need of improvement today than a decade ago.

The state and federal government has each devised its own school improvement system. They differ in important ways—measuring performance differently, setting different performance expectations, and taking different approaches to supporting low–performing schools. Taken individually, each system has its own inherent flaws. Taken together, the state and federal systems form a labyrinth of duplicative and disconnected program requirements that send mixed messages to teachers, parents, schools, and districts. As listed in the figure below, we think this dual system of school improvement has major problems.

Given the shortcomings of the current systems, many have acknowledged the need for a new system. In an effort to move toward an improved system, the administration presented a budget plan in January 2008 that entails a restructuring of the federal school improvement program. Although the administration’s budget plan contains some promising components, it leaves intact many of the fundamental problems of the existing dual system.

In this report, we provide a comprehensive reform plan that unifies the state and federal systems and attempts to overcome the various problems mentioned above. Compared to the existing school–centered system, the new system would be district centered. It would distinguish among districts based on the magnitude of their performance problems and link short–term funding to specific short–term reform activities. Because of the substantial overlap in participation that now exists among state and federal school improvement programs and the substantial federal funding that California now has available for school improvement efforts, the new system could be supported entirely with federal funds. Indeed, given available federal funds exceed the estimated ongoing cost of the new system, our reform plan includes a companion one–time initiative centered around improving the quality of student data in California.

Eight Major Shortcomings of

Dual School Improvement System

Having two sets of performance measures and expectations sends mixed messages to schools.

State decile rankings mask large differences in school performance.

Federal indicators of progress mask large differences in school performance.

School-based approach to reform shown to be ineffective.

School-based approach ignores critical role of districts.

School-based approach is unsustainable.

Having multiple interventions is confusing and can be counterproductive.

Sunday, June 22, 2008

June 22, 2008 — ZELMA HENDERSON, the last living plaintiff from the Brown v. Board of Education desegregation suit, died last month at the age of 88. Unlike other parents involved in the case, Henderson was satisfied with the quality of all-black schools. What mattered more to her was giving children of different races a chance to learn together and understand each other.

If that had ever happened in Los Angeles, the city's public schools might look much different than they do today.

In many urban areas, the process of school integration was challenging and painful. It meant taking students out of their schools, placing them with those they had learned to fear or despise, and often busing them across town to do so. In some cities, despite the best hopes for educational equity and mutual understanding, integration failed.

But integration never had a chance to fail in L.A., because whites were already out the door.

Well before any action had been taken to desegregate schools, white residents began pulling their children from L.A. Unified and enrolling them in private or suburban schools. Beginning as early as 1960, they saw change coming and left in droves. By the time the district unveiled its integration plan in 1978, the schools had lost nearly a quarter of a million white students.

They left L.A. Unified not because of negative experiences they had, but because of negative experiences they imagined would come. Either way, however, the consequence

was the same: they divorced their interests from those who remained in L.A. Unified schools. As a result, future challenges to the public schools would have to be met by its least advantaged: those left behind.

By 1960, L.A.'s system of segregated schools was well established. Segregation fostered racial stereotypes by keeping students apart and stereotypes, in turn, were frightening enough to make even open-minded parents suspicious of integration. Then came the Watts riots.

The timing of the riots couldn't have been worse for integrationists. At the time there were still 400,000 white students enrolled in L.A.'s mostly segregated public schools, but the Brown decision was already a decade old, and civil-rights activists were fighting to enforce it in California.

Further, in 1963 the family of Jay Jackson had won a desegregation suit against the Pasadena school district. In siding with Jackson, the court applied Brown to California for the first time, and declared that residential segregation was not an excuse for segregated schools.

That same year, a suit was filed against the L.A. Board of Education. Though the case would take years for the courts to settle, integration, it seemed, was coming to L.A.

The specter of school desegregation alone might have unsettled whites. But in the post-Watts context, integration was a clear and present danger for those whose only exposure to nonwhites was through disproportionate media coverage of racially charged events like the riots and the East L.A. brownouts. A resident of Watts-adjacent South Gate explained that as he saw it, if schools were integrated, whites "would have been beaten, raped and killed."

In racially mixed schools, students were able to talk through some of these misperceptions. One teacher recalled in 1972: "After a lot of discussion, one girl said to a black classmate, `Joy, I like you very much, but I can't go to Watts to see you.' And the other girl said, `What makes you think I live in Watts?"' Eventually the two found common ground. But they were exceptions in an exceptional school.

Consequently, as activists pushed for integration, the district began hemorrhaging white students, losing 80,000 between 1966 and 1970 and another 130,000 in the next decade. By 1980, suburban counties were rushing to build new facilities and the ranks of L.A. County private schools had swelled to roughly 200,000.

So much for mutual understanding.

A critical mass of white families left the district, and in so doing changed the way future parents with school-age children would view L.A. public schools. Many who were already considering leaving the city decided to go. Many who might otherwise have chosen to put down roots saw a school system in upheaval and joined the throngs of new commuters transforming former orange groves into suburbs. Many who stayed dug out their checkbooks and enrolled their children in private schools.

And segregation lived on.

Today, L.A. Unified is 91 percent nonwhite. To many in the city, the three-quarters of a million students in LAUSD are other people's children, and low achievement scores are simply endemic to poverty, not a rallying cry for intervention. Our interests are separate and disconnected.

Are segregated schools inherently unequal? In siding with the Brown plaintiffs, the Supreme Court thought so. But to people like Zelma Henderson, Brown wasn't just about equal education. It was also about a vision of unification - a vision rooted in the ability of children to see each other, across the racial divide, as equals. A vision that never made it in L.A.

Jack Schneider is a Stanford Graduate Fellow at Stanford University and director of University Paideia, a pre-college program for low-income students.'Segregation forever' - LA Daily News

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Experts say the exit exam is having a huge effect on dropouts. The UC-led report showed that middle school experiences and teacher quality were also major factors.

Debra Duardo, the LAUSD director of dropout prevention and recovery said there were no surprises in the new data, and the dropout project study confirmed what district officials have assumed about the barriers that keep students from graduating.

"The study overlooks the district's recent success in keeping students in school, and on track to graduate, after they miss their normal graduation date.

"If they don't do it in four years, maybe they can do it in five years," she said.

The number of students graduating from Los Angeles public schools has declined for two straight years even as enrollment in the 12th grade has been rising sharply, new state data show. The graduation slump began when California started requiring students to pass an exit exam before they could receive a diploma.

The data caught educators by surprise after they were quietly posted on the state Department of Education website. Separately, new research released this week indicated that only 48% of students in the Los Angeles Unified School District graduate on time.

Campuses stress that the event marks a transition to more education, not the end of the process. At a Santa Ana school, it's 'promotion' and in Los Angeles it's 'culmination activities.'

Schools throughout the country in recent years have eliminated or scaled back eighth-grade graduations, concerned that over-the-top ceremonies too closely resemble high school graduations and imply finality rather than a mere transition to further education.

4LAKids disagrees - Middle School/Junior High or whatever - this is a milestone and the kids deserve the recognition. This is a big deal when you're 14!

Local school workers are mobilizing to take a midnight ride to Sacramento Monday to urge California legislators to stop the devastating cuts to school budgets that loom as the result of the governor’s proposal to reduce the state’s education funding by more than $4 billion for the upcoming school year.

Hundreds of Los Angeles Unified School District teaching assistants, cafeteria workers, clerks, custodians and others are signing up to board buses at midnight Monday to travel overnight and spend the day lobbying state legislators about the impact the governor’s budget cuts will have on local classrooms and communities.

From KPCC Public radio: In the Los Angeles Unified School District, the approach to special education is simple: Provide support and services and place disabled children with the rest of the students. In the second part of our series, KPCC's Patricia Nazario goes behind the scenes with a single mom bringing up her three sons. L.A. Unified covers the cost of their special education needs.

California's sizeable achievement gaps in English-language arts and mathematics in second and third grades have early roots, with the same groups of children that lag in academic performance in elementary school trailing in measures of school readiness when they enter kindergarten. Participation in effective preschool programs has the potential to narrow these gaps, but the state's current system of publicly funded early care and education programs are not designed to maximize the child development and school readiness benefits. New data collected for the project on preschool use and quality shows most California children attend center-based preschools, but quality of programs falls short.

"In the business world, when the owners of restaurants or retail stores want to expand, they choose between two models: corporate-style growth with central management or franchising. "

If you don't think that some charter schools are a high-growth-model for-profit instruments to privatize public education and maximize return-on- investment, read on.And not just any business model, ...Retail!

Los Angeles Unified elementary school teachers have had a tough time this week dealing with the district's computerized grading system.

Administrators at Lockhurst Elementary have advised teachers to fill in grades and comments by hand, if necessary, said Rod Wylie, who teaches third grade at the Woodland Hills campus.

"It just frosts me that this is happening now," Wylie said. "It's a real inconvenience to do it by hand. We used to, but it seems like wasted time when the technology is available to input and print."

"The culprit was an old system working at capacity and the lingering effects of a probable virus infestation," said Tony Tortorice, chief information officer for the Los Angeles Unified School District.

Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is being recognized for building more new healthy green schools than any other school district in the country. LAUSD is creating a healthy, high-performing learning environment for tens of thousands of children and teachers while helping to protect the environment for people throughout the region.

Democrats tapped a teacher from upstate New York to make the case that their party will do more for working Americans than Republicans will.

Jeff Alberici, an eighth-grade history teacher in Auburn, N.Y., was chosen to deliver the Democrats' Saturday radio address — an unusual choice for a weekly task usually performed by elected officials.

The UC-led report showed that middle school experiences and teacher quality were also major factors.

Debra Duardo, the LAUSD director of dropout prevention and recovery said there were no surprises in the new data, and the dropout project study confirmed what district officials have assumed about the barriers that keep students from graduating.

"The study overlooks the district's recent success in keeping students in school, and on track to graduate, after they miss their normal graduation date.

"If they don't do it in four years, maybe they can do it in five years," she said.

By Mitchell Landsberg | Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

June 21, 2008 - The number of students graduating from Los Angeles public schools has declined for two straight years even as enrollment in the 12th grade has been rising sharply, new state data show. The graduation slump began when California started requiring students to pass an exit exam before they could receive a diploma.

The data caught educators by surprise after they were quietly posted on the state Department of Education website. Separately, new research released this week indicated that only 48% of students in the Los Angeles Unified School District graduate on time.

The latest figures are sure to stir new concerns about the ability of Los Angeles schools to serve the needs of the majority of their students, and revive a debate about the wisdom of mandating an exit exam, even one that has been described as requiring only about an eighth-grade education to pass.

The Los Angeles Unified School District officially declared a 64% graduation rate in 2005-06, the most recent year for which a rate is available. District leaders have long disputed studies that have shown the rate to be under 50%.

But district officials did not reject the findings of the latest study, released Thursday by the California Dropout Research Project at UC Santa Barbara. Perhaps the most in-depth study ever done of Los Angeles dropouts, it examined individual student transcripts for the class that began ninth grade in September 2001 and should have graduated in June 2005.

"It's a good methodology," said Esther Wong, L.A. Unified's assistant superintendent for planning, assessment and research, who reviewed a draft of the study. "It's certainly better than trying to calculate it and do a best estimate."

Wong did question whether the study might have understated the graduation rate by not accounting for students who transferred to other districts. But Jeannie Oakes, a professor of education at UCLA who oversaw the research, said such students were removed from the count of incoming ninth-graders, so they could not have tainted the findings.

The study concluded that the low graduation rate for L.A. Unified can be explained in large measure by the quality of students' middle school experience and the quality of teachers at their high schools.

"We've learned from this that middle school is just hugely important," said Oakes, who runs UCLA's Institute for Democracy, Education & Access. Although the dropout project is based at UC Santa Barbara, it relies on researchers at several institutions, and the study was conducted at UCLA.

The study found that differences among schools -- for instance, the percentage of highly qualified teachers, the percentage of English learners and the status of the school as a magnet -- played a stronger role in predicting whether a student would graduate than "student factors," such as race and socioeconomic status.

Magnet schools had a major effect on success. Nearly three-quarters of the students attending an L.A. Unified magnet high school graduated on time, compared with just 45% of those who didn't. Magnet schools typically offer specialized, theme-based instruction and were mandated by a court order to attract students of different races.

The dropout study and the recently released state data foreshadow the release of new and potentially explosive statistics on the state dropout rate that are expected in mid-July. Because California has begun assigning new, statewide identification numbers to all public-school students, the dropout data are expected to be far more accurate than in the past, when there was near-universal acknowledgment that the numbers vastly understated the problem.

Statewide, 12th-grade enrollment has been rising for several years, the result of a baby boomlet in the late 1980s. Meanwhile, the number of high school graduates has stayed stagnant.

In Los Angeles Unified, the rise in enrollment has been steeper than for the state overall, yet the number of graduates declined from 29,744 in 2005 to 27,438 in 2007.

The high school exit exam, often referred to by its acronym, CAHSEE, became a requirement for a diploma beginning with seniors who graduated in 2006. State and local officials widely agreed that it was the most likely cause for a decline in graduates.

"I can't think of any other reason," said Keric Ashley, director of data management for the California Department of Education. "The CAHSEE does have some impact, not as much as some people thought it would."

John Rogers, a UCLA professor who has studied the exit exam's effect on graduation rates, said he believes the state has downplayed its impact. The exam will hit the class of 2008 especially hard, he said, because for the first time, special education students had to pass the test.

"In 2008, far fewer students will graduate than probably any year over the last 25 years," Rogers said.

Figures for 2008 graduates aren't expected until next spring.

Debra Duardo, the director of dropout prevention and recovery for Los Angeles Unified, said there were no surprises in the new data, and the dropout project study confirmed what district officials have assumed about the barriers that keep students from graduating.

For instance, as others have done previously, the researchers pointed to algebra as a tripwire for many students.

Seventy percent of students who passed Algebra 1 by the end of ninth grade went on to graduate on time.

But the majority of students did not pass it in eighth or ninth grades, and roughly two-thirds of them failed to graduate on time.

The study found that students who changed schools during either middle or high school had much lower graduation rates, including students who switched between the sixth and seventh grades.

Duardo said the district is responding to those problems.

She also said the study overlooked the district's recent success in keeping students in school, and on track to graduate, after they miss their normal graduation date.

"If they don't do it in four years, maybe they can do it in five years," she said.

Alex Garcia / Los Angeles Times - Most students take the SAT twice, once each in their junior and senior years. The new scoring option mimics the long-standing policy of the less popular ACT test.

Youths who take the exam multiple times can choose just the best results. Some people see a reduction in stress, but others say the move will mostly help the affluent because of the test's cost.

By Seema Mehta and Larry Gordon, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

June 21, 2008 - High school students seeking to put the best shine on their college applications will soon be able to choose which of their SAT scores to share with admissions officers and which to hide, the College Board said Friday.

The new policy, starting with the class of 2010, will allow students to take the widely used college entrance exam multiple times without admissions officers seeing their less-than-stellar efforts. Now, colleges receive scores of all the times a student attempted the dreaded test, whether the results were spectacular, mediocre or worse.

"Students were telling us the ability to have more control over their scores would make the test experience more comfortable and less stressful," said Laurence Bunin, senior vice president of the SAT. ". . . We can do that without in any way diminishing the value and integrity of the SAT."

The College Board, the nonprofit organization that owns the test, made the change at a time when some universities are placing less emphasis on standardized testing in choosing prospective freshmen and as the rival ACT exam is gaining popularity. The new SAT scoring option, approved Thursday by the College Board's trustees, mimics the ACT's long-standing policy.

But some high school counselors and college admissions officials voiced concern Friday that the new rules would most help affluent students whose parents can pay for multiple SAT attempts, at $45 a sitting, as well as pricey coaching. Previously, admissions officials would know if a student took the test four, five, even six times and might be suspicious about the role of tutoring in any improved scores.

"In every policy change, there are some winners and losers," said Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Assn. of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. "This creates a penalty-free way for applicants who can afford the price of the test numerous times to shop for their best scores. For those students for whom cost is not a barrier, this is a tremendously good thing."

Most students take the exam twice, once each in their junior and senior years. The College Board waives the fee for lower-income students to take it twice. Only 15% take the exam three or more times, and research shows that repeated test taking is unlikely to further increase a student's scores, officials said.

The SAT, which takes three hours and 45 minutes to complete, has three sections -- math, critical reasoning and writing -- and a perfect score of 2400 requires earning an 800 on each part. Colleges typically use the test results as a uniform way to compare students who come from schools across the nation with varying grading policies and curricula. Grades, recommendations, extracurricular activities and other factors also figure into the selection process.

Under the new policy, students who take the SAT or the supplemental SAT subject exams multiple times will be able to decide whether to let colleges see one, some or all of their scores. There is no extra charge, and students must opt into the program online or on the telephone; otherwise all scores will be shared.

To ensure fairness and to stop students from "gaming the system," the College Board ruled out allowing students to mix and match their math, reasoning and writing scores from the different times they take the test.

Historically, the New York-based SAT has been popular on the East and West coasts, while the Midwest and the South are the strongholds for the ACT, based in Iowa City, Iowa. For the class of 2007, nearly 1.5 million took the SAT, compared with the ACT's 1.3 million. Some observers say recent gains for the ACT prompted the new SAT policy.

"They need to make changes to keep their product competitive," said Robert Schaeffer, public education director at the Cambridge, Mass.-based FairTest, which is critical of standardized testing. "If the ACT is the Avis of the industry, they've been catching up with Hertz."

Counselors said the new policy will help reduce stress.

"It's going to make students relax about the test a bit," said Stephen Williams, a counselor at Eagle Rock High School in Los Angeles. "It may give them more confidence to take some risks and try it some more times."

But for fairness, he said, the College Board should extend fee waivers so low-income students can take the test for free three or four times.

Reactions from universities and colleges were mixed. University of California officials said the new policy would have no effect on their nine undergraduate campuses -- they already use only the best score of a single sitting, no matter how many times an applicant tackles the exam.

Some admissions officials thought the plan might backfire for some students. Many private colleges consider only the best sub-scores of the three SAT sections from an applicant's various attempts -- for example, possibly a math from May and a writing score from October -- and that can't be done if just one day's test is sent in.

USC, for example, opposes the new option and may still require applicants to submit all of their SAT attempts, said Timothy Brunold, director of undergraduate admission.

"We would prefer to see a student's entire score history, because it gives us the context of how students earned their scores," he said. By submitting the single best total from one day, the applicant "may not get the benefit" of how USC and many other universities count the best section scores, he said.

Bruce Poch, dean of admissions at Pomona College, slammed the decision. "It's a mistake. It's going to give kids more room to play games," he said. "It's going to privilege kids who are already in an advantaged position financially."

Pomona in recent years has seen greater numbers of applicants taking both the SAT and the ACT -- evidence of the latter's increase in popularity, which Poch said the College Board appeared to be trying to stall with its decision.

"There's no evidence that it's anything more than a marketing decision because they think they're going to give up a majority of that market to ACT takers," he said.

Students, however, lauded the move. Jaleel Reed, soon to be a senior at Loyola High School in Los Angeles, said he wished his graduating class of '09 could take advantage of the new SAT policy. Younger students will be delighted, he said.

"You want colleges to see your best work. So this only helps your chances," said Reed, who took the SAT this spring and plans to repeat it in the fall. He said he intended to apply to UC campuses and top East Coast universities.